ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS

The president has repeatedly denied that he is a Socialist. He says he is a centrists who looks out for the middle class. But his actions and appointments speak volumes about his socialist leanings.
To illustrate the similarity of Obama's actions in the first 60 plus days he has been president to those of Socialist International. I offer this excerpt from the SI home page.

The SI Commission on Global Financial Issues met in Vienna on 3 November, for the first of a series of meetings, and in advance of the Socialist International Council in Mexico on 17-18 November where tackling the global financial crisis will be at the top of the agenda.

Hosted by the Chancellor of Austria, Alfred Gusenbauer, a member of the Commission, the discussions highlighted the principles guiding the global social democratic response to the world financial crisis and, given the new phase of the crisis affecting emerging and developing countries and the urgency of the situation of many people around the world today, the Commission set out five concrete initiatives to assist those directly affected by the crisis.

Calling for a new relationship between government and the market, the Commission underlined that confidence would not be restored in the financial markets unless behaviour was changed through comprehensive and robust regulation, accompanied by far-reaching reforms made to the international financial system.Sound familiar?

The plans Obama has for taking over OUR financial institutions,socializing medicine,taxing carbon emissions produced by industry and controlling our home thermostats to regulate the use of energy are all socialist changes to our free enterprise system.
But the action that destroyed any semblance of his being a centrist is his appointment of the new Energy Czar.
Carol Browner has been a member of the American socialist party for many years. The SI blog site removed all references to her participation when she was nominated, but cached sites reveal she was very active in the American Socialist movement.
I guess we should not be surpise when we look at his own words, "Obama in his own book said he chose his friends wisely in college and then listed Marxist Professors as someone he carefully chose to hang around.His schetchy history includes these facts:

He supports a Marxist first cousin in Kenya. There are videos out there on Youtube of him supporting this guy “Raila Odinga.” His cousin allows Sharia law in his country for Muslims.

He is friends with a Marxist named William Ayers who as recently as last year said he is not sorry for what he has done in the past. William served on boards with Obama and one of Obama’s campaign people said that BO’s career was launched in Ayers house.

I heard this morning and have not had time to confirm, Michelle Obama worked at the same law firm with William Ayers Wife. They are clearly more than just neighbors if this is true.

To me this just shows a pattern. The man is a Marxist. He hangs out with a known terrorist and does not deny it. He chooses to surround himself with people that believe in Marxism. He wnt to a church that had apastor who is racist Marxist. What more evidence does one need?

Some members of the Republican party have had the strength of character to "call out" Obama on his socialist leanings as this story from Lee Ann Goodman of the Canadian Press illustrates.
"President Barack Obama's plans are "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment," says one top Republican.

He's "the world's best salesman of socialism," says another.

"Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff," says Mike Huckabee, one-time Republican presidential candidate.

Fox News personality Sean Hannity derides his agenda as "socialism you can believe in," while his colleague in cacophonous conservative punditry, Rush Limbaugh, is unapologetic about publicly declaring his desire for Obama to fail: "Why would I want socialism to succeed?"

Barack Obama's history shows ties to the New Party(socialist) during the 1990s. The New Party was a far-left organization founded by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and other extremists. It not only endorsed Obama in his 1996 state Senate race, but, when Obama won, wrote that he was an "NP member." To my knowledge, no mainstream reporter or news outlet has asked Obama whether he was, as the New Party wrote, a member of that organization, or whether he subscribed to the New Party's far left--it's fair to say "socialist"--platform.

Some Obama supporters have denied that he was in fact a New Party member, although I don't think Obama himself has commented. Now a New Zealand web site called "New Zeal" has dug up a wealth of information on the New Party, including a second claim by the New Party that Obama was a member. This is from the Spring 1996 edition of New Party News:

New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)..."these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work" said Obama.
Taken together, the evidence strongly suggests that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party in the 1990s. At a bare minimum, he was endorsed by the New Party, worked with New Party members and attended New Party events. Given the radicalism of the New Party's program, it is hard to understand how any Main Stream Media interviewer could fail to ask Obama about his association with the group.And yet, it isn;t that diificult when you consider the TV and Newspapers have embraced Obama as their "messia"!

HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF

Once Adolph Hitler was appointed Chancellor by an aging President of Germany. He instituted a loyalty oath. Not to the German Republic, but to Hitler himself. In a few short months anyone who failed to execute this oath were jailed or sent to concentration camps!
And in Italy the same type of pessure was placed on Italians.If and when Obama's radical changes becomes laws,the Congress won't be the ones who have to live with their decisions. That burden would fall on taxpayers and businesses.Government will make the decision, all we the people could do is abide by it.

In Italy in an earlier decade, this approach to government-taxpayer relations, which gives the state the final say in all maters, was part of a larger system. That system had a name: fascism. Somewhere, Benito Mussolini is smiling.Source:The Patriot Post

Fast forward to 2009 and we find ourselves confronting a new-loyalty oath being "hatched" by the inside supporters of President Obama. It was drawn up because of the negative information about the Socialist leanings of Obama's programs that has emerged on the Talk Radio shows and the Fox News Network, aided by the Conservative Bloggers like myself.

Now there is a new organization on the political scene -- "Organizing for America," announced by President Barack Obama in late January but officially unfurled last weekend.

Obama describes OFA as a "grass-roots movement" but OFA is a "project" of the Democratic National Committee.

As Politico reported, OFA will take the 10 million person database built up by the Obama campaign "to mobilize support for the president's legislative agenda."

A visit to the OFA website reveals that supporters are not simply asked to sign up, they are asked to take a pledge. A pledge to support -- not the flag, not the constitution, not the country, not even the Democratic Party, but Obama and his "bold plan." OFA does not use the Democratic Party logo but the "O"-shaped logo of the Obama campaign in which the red white and blue of the flag are abstracted to soft pastel colors.


You will not find any mention of OFA`s governing structure, their budget, their bylaws, or their officers at the OFA website. Donations to the website go to the DNC, but OFA is managed out of the White House. If you click on the comments button, you are taken to a link to the White House email.

Those who take the pledge are asked to "talk with people about the President's plan" and to "ask them to sign their names to the pledge" in support of Obama's policies.

So we have a Movement -- this is their term, not mine -- organized by, and loyal to, a sitting President. Pledge canvassers, armed with your name, will ask you to pledge loyalty to the President too. A president whose term has already become a permanent campaign, is signing up ground forces in a mass organization pledged to personal loyalty to their Leader.Is tyranny far behind?

While his minions plan the attack on the Conservatives leading the opposition to Obama's march to Socialism. Obama wants to pursue inflationary policies by spending the taxpayers money at a "drunken sailor" Pace. He’s pushing the deficit beyond the breaking point. He’s using “card check” to inflate wages, producing unemployment. He’s destroying savings.

And he’s loving every minute of it. When it comes to inflation, very few people can identify its pernicious effects; it’s far easier to cite the dangers of laissez-faire capitalism. Which, of course, is Obama’s plan. Capitalism will be different when Obama finishes with it -- it will be another name for socialism, purposefully brought on by governmental measures.

This is what happened in Italy and Germany when Hitler and Mussolini took control of the governments. I am not comparing Obama to either despot, but his "back room" promoters act like they would like to have the FORCE to do just that!

WHEN WILL OUR LEADERS START THINKING ABOUT SAVING OUR ECONOMY?

The forthcoming G-20 meeting of the twenty largest economy's in the World will try to give the impression that elected and appointed officials will accomplish something that will reverse the negative spiral of the World Economy.
On deck is the request by the USA , Britain and Germany to China to contribute more money to the World recovery. But the Communist Chinese Premier has already said that China would not contribute more money to the World bail out unless the G-20 nations treat China more favorably. What he needs to satisfy him has never been revealed to the American public, but I suspect it is something that will not make Americans happy.
Thus, the G-20 in my opinion is nothing more than a meaningless charade dressed up as a waste of time!

One thing I expect to come out of the G-20 meeting is the agreement to flood the World market with "worthless" paper money, that will devalue all currencies and cause super inflation World wide,

Alistair Darling and senior figures in the US Treasury have been encouraging the Fund to issue hundreds of billions of dollars worth of so-called Special Drawing Rights in the coming months as part of its campaign to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression.

Should the move, which is up for discussion by the summit of G20 finance ministers this weekend, be adopted, it will represent a global equivalent of the Bank of England's plan to pump extra cash into the UK economy.

Economists warned that the scheme to flood the World with "printed" money could cause a major swell of inflation around the world as the newly-created money filters through the system. The idea has been suggested by a number of key figures, including billionaire investor George Soros( big contributor to Obama's campaign and a Socialist) and US Treasury adviser Ted Truman.

Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF, said: "The principle behind it is that everyone would get bonus dollars and instead of the Federal Reserve having to print them, everyone gets them.

"The objective is to create a windfall of cash. However if everybody goes out and spends the money it could be very inflationary." Source:World Telegraph

On top of all this manipulation of worthless money there is the issue of where the Stimulus money went that was appropriated by the Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

An examination of just where the tax payers money went, reveals that more money went to foreign banks in Great Britain, Germany, France and Switzerland than went to banks in the USA! The money was given to AIG by the Federal Government supposedly to save our economy by bailing AIG out, an investment firm that could not be allowed to fail. Then AIG CEO Edward Liddy promptly distributed payments of $105.3 billion between September and December 2008. And some of the biggest recipients were European banks. Societe Generale, based in France, was the top foreign recipient at $11.9 billion, Deutsche Bank of Germany got $11.8 billion and Barclays, based in England, was paid $8.5 billion.

Here in the U.S., Goldman Sachs received $12.9 billion, and Lehman Bros. was allowed to go bankrupt! Where is the justification for OUR government allowing foreign banks to survive while allowing some financial institutions in the USA to fail?

THE ULTIMATE INSULT TO PURPLE HEART VETERANS

If President Obama wants to destroy the morale of OUR brave volunteers in uniform he is going about it in a stellar way!
This report from the American Legion Commander after his meeting with Obama illustrates a disdain and animus unlike any ting I have ever seen for veterans of military service who were wounded in combat!

It has been customary ever since WWII that the Veterans Administration cared for wounded and disabled veterans by providing their medical care, drugs as needed and rehabilitation. Now apparently a desperate President Obama is searching around for ways to scrape up money to pay for his welfare programs. And he has apparently decided that one way to garner 540 million dollars is to shift the burden from the VA to the Private Insurance Companies who cover veterans, by billing the insurance companies for treatment of veterans by the VA.
I myself make bi-yearly visits to the local VA medical facility, and see many disabled veterans being treated each time I visit my VA doctor.Since I am a veteran of the Korean conflict who was lucky enough not to suffer any enemy caused wounds, but have a slight disability from a fall on the steel flight deck of the USS Hancock during general quarters. I am eligible for VA benefits, and would hate to see the President complicate the treatment of veterans by involving private insurance companies who have no obligation to provide care for injuries or wounds caused during a man or woman's military service.

This proposed change may cause many employers to be reticent to hire veterans who are Purple Heart recipients because of the medical adverse selection. This is no way to treat people who have sacrificed their well being for their Country.

The following is a report from Craig Roberts of The American Legion, +1-202-263-2982 Office, +1-202-406-0887 Cell

A group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joined Mr. Roberts for a meeting with the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

I strongly agree and I believe all veterans no matter what their political leanings are, should voice their opposition to this proposed dastardly move by Obama. If Obama wants to save some money but cutting of benefits to someone. Perhaps he should consider junking the "bussing" of elementary and high school students, and return to neighborhood schools. Every day hundreds of thousans of yellow buses clog the highways transporting school kids at a great expense and the use of millions of fosil fuels to promote a Liberal concept that has been an abject failure.

Pupil transportation is big business. The number of school children riding school buses in the United States has risen dramatically, making school busing one of this nation's greatest service industries. American pupil transportation provides an estimated 10 billion rides to and from school annually.


Public school transportation costs approximately $500 per year per pupil. Only Pennsylvania transports all school children at state expense. The fifty states spent $11,746,576,005(that is 11 billion) for the 1999–2000 school year, which included expenditures for transportation and capital outlay to purchase new or replacement school buses.Why not take this benefit away instead of attacking veterans?
Source:href="http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2512/Transportation-School-Busing.html">Transportation and School Busing - The School Bus, History of Pupil Transportation, Issues in Pupil Transportation

ARE WE HEADED FOR ANOTHER TERRORIST DISASTER?

On September 12, 2001 the whole country was alert and anxious to retaliate against those who committed the dastardly act in New york and Washington. But the fear and anger gradually turned to apathy and antagonism toward President "George Bush"s War".
The media and academia along with the "grown up" hippies of the anti-war 60's kept up a steady drum beat for withdrawal from Iraq and the need for Change.

The electorate turned against Bush and the Republicans, and the result was the election of the well spoken junior Senator from Illinois who offered withdrawal from Iraq and the closing of Guantanamo Prison camp. His motto was Change.
Barack Obama made 510 promises when he was running for president, a list that is stunning in its scope and leaves almost no part of the executive branch untouched, according to a new analysis by PolitiFact.
The analysis found that Obama made more than twice as many promises as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, whose campaign pledges were examined by other news organizations. Bush made 177 promises in 2000 and Clinton made 204 in 1992, as reported by the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (now McClatchy).

Obama made sweeping promises like ending the Iraq war and cutting taxes on the middle class, and narrow ones like establishing programs to help animals survive global warming, weatherizing 1 million low-income homes per year and increasing tax deductions for artists.Specific promises like ending the tax breaks for the "rich",

The promises reflect a philosophy that government can, and perhaps should, play a role in solving problems at all levels.
• Obama calls for more regulation, new agencies and at least 11 new groups that would have "corps" in their name, including: an America's Voice Corps to foster international diplomacy; an Artists Corps to work in low-income schools and communities; and a Health Corps to improve public health.

• Of the 510 promises, most deal with foreign policy (87); followed by health (76); the environment (59) and energy (51). He's also fond of transparency (33) and government efficiency (32).

• He likes advice. We found he plans to create at least 10 new advisers such as a director of urban policy, a special adviser on violence against women, the nation's first chief technology officer and an American Indian policy adviser.

• Even before the need arose for a major economic stimulus bill, Obama proposed hundreds of billions in new spending. His ideas include $150 billion over 10 years on green initiatives, $60 billion for roads and bridges; $50 billion for the global fight against AIDS; and $25 billion more in foreign aid. He also promised billions in cost savings by ending the war in Iraq, reducing earmarks and reforming federal contracting, to name a few.

• He likes green. Overall, Obama hopes to create 5 million "green" jobs as part of a more energy-efficient economy. He wants to retrofit federal buildings to save energy. For veterans, there's a "Green Vet Initiative" to help vets get jobs in renewable energy. He even has a plan to help spur a "Green Revolution" in Africa.

Obama's high level of detail — and the large number of promises — reflects the need for a newcomer to establish his credibility.

"Obama was relatively unknown at the national level," said Martha Joynt Kumar, a professor of political science at Towson University, "so he had to have a greater degree of specificity about what his plans were. You've got to let people know who you are."

Although at times ridiculed by opponents as little more than a gifted speaker who emphasized abstract platitudes like "change," Obama and his policy team laid out an extremely detailed agenda for America. He was well-known for his pledge to end the war in Iraq, but his position paper on the issue details eight other promises, including a specific pledge to provide at least $2 billion to assist Iraqi refugees. Likewise, his broad health care plan includes a pledge to name a coordinator to oversee all federal efforts to combat autism.

Lost in all this plan for the USA becoming a "welfare state", is the ever growing threat from radical Muslims. He has even dictated that the words "enemy combatant"not be used in any government communication to the public.

Then he nominated and the Senate confirmed the ex-governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, 51, as new Homeland Security Secretary.
This is the woman that said when asked about the building of a high fence to keep out illegals. "Show me a 50 foot high fence and I will show you a 51 foot ladder"!
She was interviewed in Berlin recently on her visit to Germany to consult with German officials about their experience with "home grown" terrorists.
She contributed this revealing insight into the way the Obama administration views the terrorist threat to the USA.

"In some ways, the problem( terrorist) in Europe is greater than in the United States. But the questions are the same. How do you identify a youth who is susceptible to becoming radicalized? How do you work with that youth, his family and community to give them alternatives to radicalization?
You have to avoid over-simplification from the far right and from the far left. Ultimately, you need to deal with the underlying immigration law and a reasonable immigration policy. At some point, when the time is appropriate, our president and congress will re-engage on the underlying immigration law. Right now, my task is to make smart enforcement decisions on the law that we have.
I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur".

Secretary, it is more than "nuance"! What you and Obama are doing is reducing the threat of Radical Muslim terrorists to that of a criminal event that can happen on any street in America every day. This over simplification in the day of nuclear weapons small enough to put in a suitcase that could wipe out whole cities is almost criminal!